Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 2 2014 Building Global Labor Solidarity Today: Learning from the KMU of the Philippines Kim Scipes Purdue University North Central, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Scipes, Kim (2014) "Building Global Labor Solidarity Today: Learning from the KMU of the Philippines," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.2.2.16092115 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol2/iss2/2 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Building Global Labor Solidarity Today: Learning from the KMU of the Philippines Abstract New labor movements are currently emerging across the Global South. This is happening in countries as disparate as China, Egypt, and Iran. New developments are taking place within labor movements in places such as Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan and Venezuela. Activists and leaders in these labor movements are seeking information from workers and unions around the world. However, many labor activists today know little or nothing about the last period of intense efforts to build international labor solidarity, the years 1978-2007. One of the key labor movements of this period, and which continues today, is the KMU Labor Center of the Philippines. It is this author’s contention that there is a lot unknown about the KMU that would help advance global labor solidarity today. This paper focuses specifically on the KMU’s development, and shares five things that have emerged from this author’s study of the KMU: a new type of trade unionism, new union organizations, an emphasis on rank and file education, building elationsr with sectoral organizations, and the need to build international labor solidarity. Keywords Labor Solidarity, Kilusang Mayo Uno, KMU, International Labor Solidarity Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Cover Page Footnote Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University North Central in Westville, Indiana, USA, and a longtime labor activist engaged in building international labor solidarity. He is the elected Chair of the Chicago Chapter of the National Writers Union, UAW #1981, AFL-CIO. He has published monographs on the radical wing of the Filipino labor movement—KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines: 1980-1994 (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1996)—and on the foreign policy program of the AFL-CIO: AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010 hardback, 2011 paperback). He served as an elected Board member for Research Committee 44 (Labor) of the International Sociological Association from 2006-2010. He has just edited a special thematic issue on “Global Labor Solidarity” for Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society, which has been published as Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2014. Scipes has published extensively in the US and around the world. He can be reached through his web site: http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes. This article is available in Class, Race and Corporate Power: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/ classracecorporatepower/vol2/iss2/2 Introduction New labor movements are currently emerging across the Global South. This is happening in countries as disparate as China, Egypt, and Iran. New developments are taking place within labor movements in places such as Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan and Venezuela. Activists and leaders in these labor movements are seeking information from workers and unions around the world. It is exciting to see global labor solidarity develop.1 While personnel and/or resources might be in short supply for these new labor movements, one thing that should be available is information—not prescriptions saying “you must do this, you must do that,” but rather here are some of our experiences and our thoughts on them; feel free to consider and use anything that might be helpful today. However, many labor activists today know little or nothing about the last period of intense efforts to build international labor solidarity, the years 1978-2007. During these years, we saw the development of a totally new type of trade unionism—social movement unionism 2—as developed by labor movements in Brazil, the Philippines and South Africa, respectively. We also saw powerful labor movements develop in Poland and South Korea. All five of these labor movements played central, if not the central role, in helping to overthrow the military dictatorship in their country: they were some of the leading proponents of popular democracy in the world! One of these labor movements from which the concept of “social movement unionism” was developed was the KMU Labor Center of the Philippines. 3 It is this author’s contention that there is a lot unknown about the KMU that would help advance global labor solidarity today. The Kilusang Mayo Uno or May First Movement was created on May 1, 1980, as an effort to unite a number of labor movements that had emerged in various regional political economies of the country into one nation-wide organization. That the KMU still exists—34 years later, almost to the day— suggests they have done something right. That they have survived incredible opposition from the elites and the military of their country—including the assassination in 1986 of their national Chairperson, massive numbers of arrests, torture and/or deaths, as well as economic dislocation, etc.—suggests there is much to be learned from their experiences and, at very least, suggests the need for their experiences to be shared with labor movements and researchers around the world. This paper focuses specifically on the KMU’s development, and shares five things that have emerged from this author’s study of the KMU: a new type of trade unionism, new union organizations (alliances), an emphasis on rank and file education, building relations with sectoral organizations, and the need to build international labor solidarity. Although he KMU’s activities are largely unknown to many current researchers, they have experiences that this author believes would be of major interest today. Overview 4 Why did the KMU develop? What were the conditions that caused workers to create it? What has enabled it to survive and grow? There were three reasons to found the KMU. First, workplace conditions were terrible, with management domination so strong that workers were almost completely at the mercy of their bosses. Second, the traditional unions had sold out workers. And third, there was a clear need for a workers' organization that would organize against foreign domination; as long as the country remained subservient to foreign interests, it would be unable to develop and confront the problems that faced its people. KMU was founded on May 1, 1980, during the dark days of the Marcos Dictatorship. The seven founding union organizations had 35,000 members under collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) at the time, with an additional 15,000 as members but without CBAs. 5 After 10 years, there were 350,000 members under CBAs, and another 400,000 workers that were under the KMU but without CBAs. 6 But there is obviously more to the KMU than just size or even membership growth. How did the KMU survive the repression of a dictator—including the arrest and detention of its chairperson, general secretary and almost 100 top leaders? How could the organization continue after the assassination of its subsequent chairperson, facing massive human rights violations and almost total opposition from the military and the ruling class? Where did the KMU find the strength to be able to lead and win its second national general workers' strike within nine years of its founding? Part of the KMU's power to endure is related to its basic principles of being genuine, militant and nationalist. A top leader interviewed in 1986, who did not want his name used, explained what these principles mean to members of the KMU: By ‘genuine,’ we mean that the KMU is run by its members. The members are given all information and decide the policies that run the organization. By ‘militant,’ we mean that the KMU will never betray the interest of the working class, even at the risk of our own lives. The KMU believes workers become aware of their own human dignity through collective mass action. By ‘nationalist,’ we believe the wealth of the Philippines belongs to the Filipino people and that national sovereignty must never be compromised. The KMU is against the presence of the U.S. bases (quoted in Scipes, 1987: 12). In other words, the KMU is class conscious, believes that workers learn more from mass struggles than from leaders cutting back room deals, and is determined that Filipinos should control the Philippines. The statement about never betraying the interests of the working class, even at risk of KMU leaders' own lives, is not hyperbole; many KMU organizers, leaders and members have been arrested and/or killed. The assassination of KMU Chairperson Rolando Olalia in November 1986 demonstrated the risks involved in being a genuine trade unionist, even for those highest in the organization. A New Type of Trade Unionism A key aspect to the KMU's survival and growth is the organization's political concept of “genuine trade unionism.” Genuine trade unionism (GTU) extends the scope of trade unionism beyond mere relations in the workplace; it also includes struggles over the political economy of the nation and its internal social relations (see Scipes, 1999).